September 11th, 2008

I hadn’t been following the women’s movement all that closely since its relatively sedate days of “equal pay for equal work.” Yes, I knew that at some point rather long ago it had been taken over by a radical fringe on the Left with some zany ideas that had turned off the vast majority of women—and men—and had given the movement a bad name. But I had no idea.

Repeat, shouting: I HAD NO IDEA!

The nomination of Sarah Palin has acted as a sort of plaque discloser for the display of a fulminating rage which until now I had assumed was directed by these activists solely (and all too often inappropriately) towards the men they felt had oppressed, assaulted, and otherwise done them wrong. Now I observe the same sort of fury directed at other women—that is, at one rather slender self-described “pit bull with lipstick” from Alaska who happens to be running for the Vice-Presidency of the United States on the Republican ticket.

Now, I’m not utterly naive. I went to junior high school; I know how mean girls can be to each other. But that was small potatoes compared to the poisonous (and sexist) invective currently being spewed forth by women on the Left.

It’s not only women doing this, of course. But just as members of minority groups sometimes feel they can criticize each other in ways not allowed to outsiders, the women involved in sending forth this river of bile must feel it’s okay for them to say things towards another woman that would be grounds for their righteous indignation if uttered by a man.

Wilson’s piece is not a parody. Nor does it represent the isolated ravings of a person who has been driven over the edge by Sarah’s ascendance to national prominence. No, to judge from the myriad seemingly female (although it’s impossible to know for sure online) commenters writing the rough equivalent of “You go, girl!” in response to Wilson’s anti-Palin invective, there is a certain subset of women who are only to happy to agree with her.

Here are Wilson’s opening paragraphs to give you an idea of the—uh—flavor of the piece. The tone continues more-or-less unabated for a total of about 1400 steaming words:

Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain’t no woman.

I confess, it was pretty riveting when John McCain trotted out Sarah Palin for the first time. Like many people, I thought, “Damn, a hyperconservative, fuckable, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a ‘sexy librarian’ costume — as a vice president? That’s a brilliant stroke of horrifyingly cynical pandering to the Christian right. Karl Rove must be behind it.”

Palin may have been a boost of political Viagra for the limp, bloodless GOP (and according to an ABC/Washington Post poll she has created a boost in McCain’s standing among white women to a 53 over Obama’s 41). But ideologically, she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread, revealing the ugliest underside of Republican ambitions — their insanely zealous and cynical drive to win power by any means necessary, even at the cost of actual leadership.

What is going on here, besides a particularly intense and sexualized form of Palin Derangement Syndrome? I submit that it’s an example of what can happen to the ideologue who so closely identifies with a special interest group that any member of said group who steps outside the boundaries of the party line becomes not just the Other, but an apostate.

There’s nothing “civil” about civil wars, is there? Such a betrayer must not only be shunned but verbally flagellated. In the olden days the person might even have been stoned.

This is happening because the Left recognizes that Sarah Palin is an effective politician who threatens to help defeat their favored candidate. But there’s much more going on.

Her personal rejection of abortion seems to be part of it. Perhaps she taps into the latent guilt and ambivalence many women may understandably feel about their own complex reproductive histories. But I don’t think the hatred of Palin would rise to its present level but for one simple fact: Palin is beautiful.

In a strange irony, woman who would eviscerate any male who for one moment suggested that a female dressing provocatively and walking in a dark alley late at night was “asking for it” feel free to remark on Palin as “fuckable,” and to refer to her selection by the GOP as their “hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.”

It’s synergistic; something about Palin’s combination of brains, charm, beauty, conservative viewpoints, and proletarian pastimes has brought out an almost unprecedented verbal viciousness in women who by all rights should be proud of her achievements as the second female Vice-Presidential nominee in history. Is this not a goal for which the woman’s movement has labored for so long? Apparently not—if she’s a conservative, and a charming and beautiful one at that.

This seems to be experienced by some as an almost unbearable dilemma, leading a few of Palin’s critics to deny Palin’s very identity as a woman even as they proclaim and deride it. This makes a certain twisted sense: if a feminist defines herself as being for women, and if Palin is a woman with unacceptable views who nevertheless is on the verge of achieving power, then it solves a knotty problem to declare her to be an unwoman.

Thus we get Wilson’s bizarre opening salvo,”Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain’t no woman.” Wilson and her sisters get to define the parameters of womanhood, you see, and to ban those who don’t meet their PC criteria.

Lest you think Wilson is an isolated example of this type of thinking, I submit a piece that appeared at the website “On Faith,” under the aegis of Newsweek and the Washington Post. It was written by Professor of the History of Religions Wendy Doniger, who teaches at the University of Chicago Divinity School, and it contains the following astounding line referring to Palin [emphasis mine]: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”

Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism… It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism…

But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.

Although I certainly don’t always agree with Paglia, here she has shown both great courage and keen foresight, acting as a Cassandra for the Left and for feminism. But Paglia might remember Cassandra’s sad fate: despite her power to predict the future, no one would heed her warnings.

[ADDENDUM: It’s international, apparently. Here’s another, this time from Canada: “No, she isn’t even female really….Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression….]

80 Responses to “Palin unhinges feminists on the Left”

We must all hope and pray that they do not, and that the words of Cintra Wilson and her ilk are spread far and wide to raise up Democratic hatred (I choose the word with care) to new heights. Thus, will a great swathe of ‘undecideds’ turn away in disgust and the ‘unsinkable Democratic Titanic’ will sink itself!

I thought that most people have already made up their minds, but the Left’s over-reactionary sexest condemnation of Palin may actually cost them votes….

Wilson’s piece in Salon Magazine that is the so sexist and misogynistic that I cannot even link to it. But, I feel the need to mention it as the most despicable piece of political clap-trap and pseudo-psychological bullshit that I have ever read.

She makes Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin look “reasonable”.

She wins the “worst-human-being award”. And I think she has a good chance to hold onto it for awhile….

An anonymous poster:

“… Why is it I get the feeling little Trig Palin, not “feminism,” is really at the heart of this rant? After all, Palin has managed to “have it all” and STILL have a “special needs” child instead of making the “politically correct” decision of having an abortion.”

I just look at that kind of stuff and shake my head. It’s so extreme that I can’t even come up with the words to describe it.

If feminists want to know why so few women these days are eager to claim the label for themselves, they need only look at those within their ranks like Wilson and Doniger. I don’t want to be in any movement that claims people like those as members.

As a male, I will have the chutzpah to apparently initiate comment on this thread.

Governor Palin is difficult to typecast. She is one of those Alaskan individualists like Mike Gravel- have you heard his radio interview
about Governor Palin ? Apparently Alaska breeds people who can’t be pushed around. What infuriates many women about Governor Palin is that she is a high achiever who has not followed in lockstep with the prevailing feminist orthodoxy. For all her achievement in real life- and knocking off an existing Governor in the primary and a former Governor in the general election is NOT the achievement of an airhead beauty queen- she is an apostate from feminist orthodoxy.

Apostates must be destroyed. In Islam, and in the High Church of Feminism.

I remember in the 60s when I left behind my conservative upbringing for almost three decades, I fancied myself a card carrying member of the ‘women’s movement.’ For me that meant, among many things, the right to be and think and do things outside the dictates of my family and southern culture, but within the limits of the law. For me that meant the freedom to explore within limits. I remember how proud I was when my daughter, then a junior in high school, got a winterim internship at Ms. Magazine in NYC.

For a long time it also meant the ‘freedom to choose’ over my reproductive life, as if the government’s sanction was the only evidence of that.

Well anyway, after I went West in the 80s, without realzing it, I began to lose interest in all that but couldn’t exactly put my finger on why. Slowly my adventures and even learning experiences out there made me rethink many of the principles I had based my earlier life on.

Today, with the Palin nomination at VEEP, I can see startkly what I only started seeing dimly back then. Yet, I too am appalled at what I see as this thing continues to unfold, and only two
observations need I share here: first, I trust my guts when something is no longer salient for me, as in the morphing of the women’s movement into radical, strident feminism; and second, that for the aging radical fems, this movement has become a source of radical stuckness and a fundamental religion of sorts.

Krauthammer’s axiom — GOP thinks Dems are wrong. Dems think GOP is evil.
This kind of viciousness is justified because she is an evil Rethuglican. Period. The more she appears to be helping McCain, the more vicious the abuse will get.

It does seem a curious thing about lefties, on which I’d love to hear neo’s views, that they seem incapable of disagreeing with someone without imputing the worst imaginable character traits and motivations to them.

…and so you will be pleased when McCain wins, dies of old age in office and this individual who is a creationist, gun toting zealot takes over? Maybe you will. But take a close look at her and see how far your much vaunted journey has taken you. Anti-rational, anti-abortion, anti-gay, intolerant and easily the most inexperienced under educated US President ever.

From reply by commenter to post on AJ Strata’s Strata-Sphere blog
“Obama/Democrat/Media Pretzel Logic Misses The Point On Palin – She IS America”
————————————————————–
But do you know how I know, that she was EXACTLY not only the right pick for McCain, but for the country?

points 48 – 52 – on the first link and the second really does not say very much

My point was that this dumb presidential race may well produce a very weak President in a cheap trick by one party to outflank the other. All this feminist not feminist abuse by both sides just obscures that the US is making a very poor decision. Do you really think this person will make a good President?

oh and trimegustus I think the bizarre Presidential beauty contest produces increasingly weak Presidents from both Parties. You can almost draw a graph of declining effectiveness and increasing detachment from reality of the individuals in office. Cant see any of the major candidates who have done anything other than say what they thought people would like to hear. But Palin looks worse than even Clinton (the guy) and Bush (younger) who have not exactly filled the office with glory.

“Equal pay for equal work” – you realize that thats communist, right? what they fought for originally was equal rights to work… equal pay for equal work is Marx and ingles.

“Equal pay for equal work is the concept that individuals doing the same work should receive the same remuneration regardless of their sex, race, sexuality, nationality or anything else. “

Then i read…

But I had no idea. Repeat, shouting: I HAD NO IDEA!

Its not like guys and people for the past 40 or more years have been trying to tell people.
But we have been marginalized so no one would hear the reality over their constant propaganda that women are equal but better than men. (right out of animal famrs some are more qual than others! which is the thing that is appalling here)

the problem is that everytime we opened our mouths, people decided to use the same tactics they use politically to stop discussion. they say we hate women, they call it hate speech, they shame you, call you names (chauvinist), insult your ability to get laid (making you horny and bitter). the list goes on and on. [and no one sees that its about control, not about whats right]

all this happened because ladies side with ladies more than men side with men. (i can call up the study and links, but everyone yells at me for being to long). which is why marx said what he did.

when gals said that they are creating a totalitarian state, a utopioan thing, under the map of communism, and destruction of the family was a goal, as well as other things… the women ignored. it. they didn’t stand up for watsion… they stood up for politically correct speech (which is commuist party thinking as promoted by the feminists!).

we became sad dads, lonely men, and wives of such who just didnt want to pay childsupport. (yeah… thats why i ended up paying support for one kid to two people while the mother took the child to a bank and commited bank robbery. she served in fed for that, but i was told fathers and men have no rights by the judge. which appaled my lawyer, a retired supreme court state justice. thats when i really understhood where this was going and took a close look)

we saw this coming and we have for a long while tried to do things, but we were not allowed because any action from men was the evil imaginary patriarchy. that they foloowed the rules of oppressed and oppressor dialectics. That they replaced the classical cannon in schools that insured continuation of western civilization with hack crap courses of womens history, where being number 2 is the same as being number one, if your female.

All of it based on appealing to womens self vanity, and the power of their envy.

I had assumed was directed by these activists solely (and all too often inappropriately) towards the men they felt had oppressed, assaulted, and otherwise done them wrong

No… you see you trusted them without reading what they were doing, and what they were saying. You were reading papers who reported their actions the way that Pravda reported what stalin did. we were fooled by duranty too.

all games of image over substance… but then again… arent push up bras, make up, plastic, boob jobs, rumor games, etc… all games of image over substance? Isnt the concept of a home an image put over a structure that is built?

there is so much i want to say… but i dont want to be yelled at. and i will bet i will be yelled at anyway..

rmember it was women who decided that home, family, haning out with women all day, shopping, and all the conviniences amounted to a pleasant gulag. (work is the gulag)

Now, I’m not utterly naive. I went to junior high school; I know how mean girls can be to each other. But that was small potatoes compared to the poisonous (and sexist) invective currently being spewed forth by women on the Left.

men were a mediating force to this. before women in politics this kind of thing wasnt common. We are finding out why those men thought the way they did. they knew what happened when things changed. To these men there was a good reason why states that had women in politics didn’t exist, and it wasn’t patriarchy (as anyone who knows the life of Elizabeth would know).

what it was is that they changed things so that nothing worked, and other states moved in and took over. no state with women ever existed in the leadership role for a long long time because they disbelieved reality. they degraded things till the states faded into oblivion. Rome fell not just because of barbarians, Cicero points out this in his comments on women in politics.

look at today… CIA just reported that America has been in decline…

wow… In less than one persons lifetime they changed so much towards communism, that we are now in decline… eventually we will be far enough along that we will be broken up and others will take it over.

before they did their things, brahms just wrote his music, art had peaked, literature was incredible… oratory amazing..

since they have had the steering wheel, music and art has gone soviet realism, literature is vacuous and dropped to 5th grade level, oratory has degraded. And as stated so long ago, we are devolving and in decline.

And there is nothing we can do to stop it since we arent allowed to point out what you are starting to realize neo!!!

your not naive… your just too busy and propaganzid to accept that they are working for you and that you can trust them. think of all the pipes leading to your ears that men dont have. even if you dont have the pipes to your ears, you get the second hand sounds… Vogue, Cosmo, etc… who sets womens opinions? who tells them to cheat because its liberating? to smoke because its liberating? who tells them they are entitled, and that men are winning because they cheat, not because they work hard and are willing to succeed or die trying?

the leaders and fellow travllers have been using you and other women as useful idiots working towards their own demise.

Each ‘disaffecgted’ group was turned into a fifth column army against the American state in favor of a communist or facist state.

However, how many average women would read about class warfare, and gender Marxism warfare… and get it? no.. they think its propaganda…

After all, they don’t get that the socialists have nothing but wars. Wars aginst drugs, wars agains poverty, war against men, war of the sexes, etc…

Too busy beating up on the easy targets of men that loved them, they got giddy with power thinking the rest of the world worked like that.

It’s not only women doing this, of course. But just as members of minority groups sometimes feel they can criticize each other in ways not allowed to outsiders, the women involved in sending forth this river of bile must feel it’s okay for them to say things towards another woman that would be grounds for their righteous indignation if uttered by a man.

well, your starting to perceive the concept of warfare through dialectics.

what do i mean by that? i mean that each of these groups are a hegelian dialectical group that serves the purpose of being a fifth column to divide a population and conqure it from the inside when its too strong, solid, and complete to be affected by convential force from outside.

duh. However how many women are into the meat and potatoes of this kind of thing?

GOOD men have known this for ages… dead white guys from long ago have been banished because there is more than 2000 years of commentary on the subject from some of the wisest thinkers who have ever lived.

here is what cicero said about the tactics:
Do not hold the delusion that your advancement is accomplished by crushing others.

you are not naive…

Quod est ante pedes nemo spectat: coeli scrutantur plagas.
No one sees what is before his feet: we all gaze at the stars

And

Not to know what happened before you were born is always to remain a child. For what is a man’s life if it is not linked with the life of future generations by memories of the past.

The left doesn’t know the past… the left doesn’t know what these harpies represent.

She is a “humiliation for America’s women” (Judith Warner for the New York Times)

a tool of the “patriarchs” (Gloria Steinem for the Los Angeles Times).

Why are women listening to that ilk? Solanas is a hero, even though she tried to murder someone, and wrote a horribly sexest diatribe play featuring talking vaginas, and pedophilistic drugged rape.

Is listening to Wilson so far away from them?

In fact, I will bet that most here do not know the points that they actually stand for, where these points came from, and what they will led to.

I submit that it’s an example of what can happen to the ideologue who so closely identifies with a special interest group that any member of said group who steps outside the boundaries of the party line becomes not just the Other, but an apostate.

Its not what can happen, its what happens because its key to group cohesion.. its crowd mentality operating… which is different than operating to individuals. Take some time to read the revolutionary documents they are following…

This is happening because the Left recognizes that Sarah Palin is an effective politician who threatens to help defeat their favored candidate. But there’s much more going on.

The left recognizes that palen is an example of meritocracy… freedom… that freedom to act as one wants rather than what the collective orders can lead to great success (so why have the collective?)

There is much more because they want a communist state.

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

Just like reading mein kampf the women didn’t believe that the women leading, like the other fractured oppressed groups, were going to actually make that kind of state.

Well, obama is how close they have taken us!!!!!!!

What I find interesting is that you are not actually going after the doctrines and why they have them. as a shrink your accepting that the population is following these things for psych reasons, when they arent.

Her personal rejection of abortion seems to be part of it. Perhaps she taps into the latent guilt and ambivalence many women may understandably feel about their own complex reproductive histories.

That’s too much thinking… that’s now how the crowd acts since the crowd has their own PERSONAL VERSIONS of these things, which allows them to be part of the group without having to be part of the parts that they don’t like.

The women feel more like they are betraying the female leaders for not supporting them, not because they think abortion is good. and these women who are leading are working for that support by manipulating them, so that when all is said and done, they can order what THEY want, not what the women who support them want. To each group they tell something different.

So to slut/lipstick feminits porn is good… so they support feminism… but to classical feminits, porn is bad… so they support feminism. The word feminism has become a code that if its put on something, like the good housekeeping seal of approval one only has to support it and can save time by not questioning it.

an almost unprecedented verbal viciousness in women who by all rights should be proud of her achievements as the second female Vice-Presidential nominee in history. Is this not a goal for which the woman’s movement has labored for so long? Apparently not—if she’s a conservative, and a charming and beautiful one at that.

Right… because no one would want totalitarianism if they just said that’s what they were promoting… And a woman like palin doesn’t like totalitarianism, because they do better with merit.

the womens movement was NEVER about the goal you bring up!!!!!!!!!
any more than communism is about world peace, freedom, democracy, and good governance

the leading women are totalitarian sociopaths… traitors to women themselves, selling the women into state slavery in exchange for power and control.

palin threatens that. palin is telling the 75% of women who don’t side with feminism as feminism, that you don’t need feminism.

Think of it… palin is saying through merit of action that women don’t need feminism, they never did, all they needed was to be like emmy noether and work their asses off. because THAT’S what men respect, and when they do that, men don’t care, since the best winner is the winner to them… (if the men really cared, and the men were actually sexist and controlling the hill, theywould never have let an uprising like feminism)

They have always supported the ideological goals of world communism!!!

And they always had this negative view of women like palin who raise the kinds of coherent family and culture that would oppose such control

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

Thus we get Wilson’s bizarre opening salvo,”Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain’t no woman.” Wilson and her sisters get to define the parameters of womanhood, you see, and to ban those who don’t meet their PC criteria.

They have been defining these parameters for 40 years… look at the date of that quote…

“The plight of mothers is more desperate than that of other women, and the more numerous the children the more hopeless the situation seems to be…. Most women…would shrink at the notion of leaving husband and children, but this is precisely the case in which brutally clear rethinking must be undertaken.” –Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p.320

They have always been this way… they have ALWAYS set to define our lives.

The private is public… remember?

This salvo is only bizarre because you haven’t been paying attention to what they have been doing while you have been trying to live your life!

“life is what happens to you while your busy making other plans” – john Lenin

Thankfully, there are a few feminist voices who beg to differ. Camille Paglia is one:

Yes she is… but she still is a feminist… so she is not as different as you think she is.

There is no way to get to a cohesive whole as long as feminism exists because its purpose is division. paglia and other serve the other half of the scissors. They are the saving graces that get you to stay with feminism after you have read the leaders screeds.

If you left her out, you might be able to say your post suggest that women don’t need feminism, or that feminism is bad… so paglia is out there making feminism seem ok and making it look like these are nut jobs not representatives.

However, if so, then feminism is meaningless, as its opposes itself. which is the soviet concept of scissors operation or the hammer and anvil. Control BOTH sides of the issues and you control the ISSUE in the middle. Paglia is the other side of the unreasonable coin. If the person is more unreasonable, they will move from paglia types, to the rad types. if the rad types turn them off, then they will move to the paglia types.

The trick is that they never leave the meta moniker of feminism. So the leaders get the power of both sides as if its one summed under one banner.

Its like considering that candy is a vehicle for delivering sugar. You can eat a chockolate bar, a syrup, a drink, a powder, lemon drops, and pastries.

But ALL of them get you to eat the poison… same with feminism.

Its never been what its pretended to be….

And THAT’S why palin is hated so so so much… as you point out through the piece, she brings this fact home hard.

The feminists are like the monty python skit for spam. They say you can have X with spam, or you can have spam with Y, etc… but every dish has spam in it.

Then palin comes along and as a successful example she says you can have your breakfast witout spam… you can have it the way YOU want, and not the way THEY want.

As I can infer from an article in Wiki, Annie Oakley was immensly popular and still is a popular figure from not so remote American past. Why all this outrage? This type of woman should be dear to real proponents of women equality.

this is a great example of how far its gone… and yet, its been “normalized” so we dont see it.

Turning the Tables (with VIDEO SHOWING!!)
How Do People React When There’s Abuse in Public, But the Gender Roles are Reversed? How Would You React?

abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047
Will people stop a woman abusing a man? “Primetime” hired actors to find out.

[they show how this is all through our culture and we dont even realize how they changed us…]

until now I had assumed was directed by these activists solely (and all too often inappropriately) towards the men they felt had oppressed, assaulted, and otherwise done them wrong. Now I observe the same sort of fury directed at other women

yet that wasnt something to be actually be stopped… it was already normalized in your mind that their actions were justified (even though it was wrong it wasnt wrong enough to link up and oppose)… as long as they werent attacking women it was not ok, but not bad enough… now they are attacking women too, something is wrong… and everyone is linking up to oppose.

isnt that an interesting effect of the normalization of such thought?

talk about accepting a double standard and the acceptance of oppressor oppressed dialectics where its presumed ok for the oppressed to attack the ones they think are doing something (as the statement above), the fact that they attack women too meant that they violated that and

watch the video.. its a real eye opener!!!

the actress really abuses him… and you watch people just walk by… and walk by.. and walk by…

meanwhile, if he defened himself, what would happen?

i am just illustrating how deeply this small part of our population has changed everything using the methods they learned from certain places.

i work in a taching hospital… and i have read the nursing manuals on abuse… women hurting men is not even in the guides… but the whole classroom textbook is men hurt women, men hurt children, men hurt the elderly… and nothing else.

On previous shows, “Primetime” has staged scenes of abuse in which the man is the aggressor, and the woman is the victim. And in these situations, passersby — men and women — often stepped up and intervened. So producers were curious. What would happen if the tables were turned, and the man was suddenly the victim? Would people be just as willing to come to his defense?
———–
A report prepared for the Centers for Disease Control estimates that each year there are over 800,000 serious cases of men being physically abused by women. But the actual figures are believed to be much higher, since many men are often too embarrassed to admit being the victim of abuse by a woman.

“For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men.” — Wendy Dennis

one of the more intersting parts of the video who celebrated her beating on him… they interview her… she assumed he was bad and deserved it.

one thought the violent woman was a role model!

the watched and recored as 160 people walked by and did NOTHING…

they even talked to a cop…

so the feminists have their attitudes moved into the general public. they have defined normal, and we never eralized the slow changes they made.

Palin threatens that definition… she loves her man… she loves her family… she is not a feminist… she has morals…

palen is an antithesis, and as such must be attacked.

look how far apart from their ideas of child rearing and such

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” — Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman

[bottom line, since they took my original family away 15 years ago, and punished me for being a good man, i have tracked all this crap, and i write on this subject for Blogwonks. i was looking all those years for a way to show that i cuold be a part of my sons life. it was through all that, that i learned what they have been doing while we havent been watchign and paying close attention!! like neo noticing now what she didnt before. this is how things change… my son just turned 21… i have only seen him maybe 10 or 12 times since he was 5. i was informed that men have no rights anymore.. and they showed me how true it is.]

all i can do is hope that people wake up to what these and other groups are tryng to create here.

the people of germany woke up too late.. the people of venezuela woke up too late… and so on and so forth…

Artfldgdr, you certainly don’t mind burning bridges, and maybe singeing your toes in the process. But let me suggest a narrower interpretation of some of what you’ve written.

Civilization declines when enough people behave in ways that are irresponsible. The June Cleaver model of behavior was responsible, at least insofar as it helped society to prosper and continue. The Sarah Palin model of behavior is also responsible. But the man-hating, child-rejecting model of wymanhood is irresponsible, at least insofar as prospering and preserving society is concerned, and not the least for its refusal to learn from the past.

These, I think, are words that someone can reason about, even those who disagree. And those who respond by name-calling will discredit themselves thereby.

I do like your point about ignorance of the past and perpetual childhood.

Now for one of the chords I like to strum:

It does seem a curious thing about lefties, on which I’d love to hear neo’s views, that they seem incapable of disagreeing with someone without imputing the worst imaginable character traits and motivations to them.

This links with Charles’s Krauthammer’s point about Democrats thinking that Republicans are EVIL. I can look at someone who is pro-abortion (I am not) without thinking “This person wants to murder children.” I do this even though I believe that is the actual effect of what the person intends, and I do it caring very much about the effect, because I understand that the person does not recognize that there is a real human life involved. Even though the person has an obligation to recognize that life, even though s/he may be willfully avoiding the truth, s/he does not view hirself as a murderer, and I cannot communicate with hir if I treat her that way. Whatever good I might be able to do hir, I cannot if I say “this is a murderer.”

But the pro-choicer who bears grievances cannot hear an argument for the life of the child without thinking “Here is someone who wants to enslave me and run my life.” It is impossible for hir to believe that this is not my purpose. It may just be that acting as your own lawyer ensures you will act like a fool, even before the bar of Reason. It may be that people don’t accept the pro-abortion argument without first demonizing the pro-life argument because that’s the only way that most of them can.

Whatever the reason, projecting your motivation patterns onto the person with whom you disagree isn’t likely to bridge any divides or come closer to any truths.

Well said, njcommuter. One of the more amusing canards from the left is that Republicans are haters, that we hate Obama because of his race, we hate women, we hate gays, we hate [your name here].

It’s curious projection, because it seems (at least) to me that the bile is directed the opposite way.

Speaking for myself, I don’t hate Obama at all, much less hate him because of his race. I just think he’d be a poor President, of the Carter ilk.

I don’t hate women. I’m married to one, and related to others.

I don’t hate gays per se.

Something I do dislike is the incessant bleating of left-wing poseurs and (especially) the agitation of hard core leftists who aren’t posing at all, but simply mean business. They would have us believe that we never face choices between unpalatable options, where the best we can do is minimize the unpalatibility. They seem instead to suggest that perfect solutions existed but were not implemented.

Hard core leftists promulgate such views in their efforts to agitate the masses. The poseurs adopt them through gross stupidity.

But even there, with few exceptions, I don’t hate any of these people, even though they irritate me with their smugness and/or mendacity.

I need help because I feel like I’m going through some kind of crisis here. I am a “neoneocon” myself. I was raised by two Democrat parents (but they were socially conservative and religious) and I find myself in the same boat. I’m a black womanist (because feminism has no place for black women at all) and a Christian.

I’m having trouble dealing with how nasty these leftists are. I really do not understand people like Heather Malick or Cintra Wilson or Bill Maher, not at ALL. They’re so nasty and vile, how can they believe this stuff?! They don’t personally offend me, it’s just that they seem like they are truly from another planet. But I don’t like to think of other human beings that way.

johnny cash: I don’t know enough about Palin (or anyone, for that matter) to predict with complete accuracy what sort of President she would make. I can guess, though, that she wouldn’t be half bad. She seems intelligent, and a quick learner, and to have integrity.

As it turns out, though, in this election I only have to answer two questions: do I think McCain would be a better President than Obama? And do I think Palin would be a better President than Obama? I can most definitely say “yes” to both.

I don’t especially like the way nominees are selected. But I think (to paraphrase Churchill) it’s the worst system, except for all the others. I don’t like the Parliamentary method at all, especially for this country; Europe can do what it wants. I don’t like the old smoke-filled rooms, although sometimes I think they ended up with better selections than we have now. But I do think that the Republicans, with more winner-take-all primaries, have a much better system than the Democrats with their totally proportional primaries. That is the reason Obama won this year, as I wrote here.

njcommuter,
Croce sang, bridges were mean for burning, when the people and memories they join arent the same.

Civilization declines when enough people behave in ways that are irresponsible.

fine… no argument there… but what i am talking about is the cause of that… and if you know yourhistory, modern, and past.. your philosphy… and movments… you know the changes to law, and the history of other countries than just the US…

then you will find that this decline has a purposeful instication to it… from the innocent writings of rousseau (noble savage), and others liek darwin… certain groups wanted to answer “the question of the west”… feminism was the answer of the communists to “the woman question”…

in case you havent noticed, there is a huge black hole where communism would be represented in the media in the US. where are the movies of the pogroms, the killings the deaths and the murders? where is the history and actions? empty…

the man-hating, child-rejecting model of wymanhood is irresponsible

well, yeah… and if you wanted to rot out the responsible and productive united states of the boom, how would YOU do it?

by making the women more irresponsible, which would lead to children raised without their history and past culture. you would infantalize them, demonize the force that could rcover the system (male), and so on and so forth.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx

the western lesson of lysistrada taken to heart.

I do like your point about ignorance of the past and perpetual childhood.

ah… oh how i wish that was MY point.. i cant take credit.. that was Marcus Tullius Cicero, from 106 bc…

you can read that far back and find really much more cogent and better stuff than i could every write… i am too verbose…

i wasnt raised traditionally… thats why i made it into bronx high school of science a year early… (was on the debate team too). my education was not formal as there was no school that would teach a curriculum that would get you into science!!!

you had to learn from early childhood and be self motivated since the high school teaches at a high college level (more nobel prize winnners have come from science than most countries, and all ivy league schools – 7 of them… maybe 8, they may have added one).

its really weird to read the dielectical stuff, the strategy stuff, then the manuals for state overthrwo… and then read the franfurt schools stuff, the teachings and follow where they came to, and where they went and who helped them.

its like those movies where the character finds out that they are a character in a movie and there is a creepy plot going on.

i like your writing… you make good commentary… and stuff i can think about…

i do apologize that i can be long… and that i too often put in all the information… but like above, when i dont… then someone just doesnt understand because we are no longer orbiting a common education that includes that stuff as my education did before it changed more.

I do this even though I believe that is the actual effect of what the person intends, and I do it caring very much about the effect, because I understand that the person does not recognize that there is a real human life involved.

is that the reason, or is the reason that you still believe in individuality and that you may not agree at all with them but you will fight for their right to believe it?

you can rationalize that they are wrong… but i get from your morals, that youi cant rationalize an evil as a means of correcting an evil.

so in essence there really isnt anything you can do except hope..

i am not so clear cut on this issue.. but i do know that the way the left communist push it, its wrong that way. most dont know the history of this putsch at all, and if you study it, you will find that as today, most are against it. however, it fits the orders of lenin in 1918 and so they copy… since it decimated russia… they use it to do the same here, selling the way it was in russia, and having a similar endings.

But the pro-choicer who bears grievances cannot hear an argument for the life of the child without thinking “Here is someone who wants to enslave me and run my life.”

yes true… to some degree…but who taught them to think like that and take that view and position when there are hundreds of others?

how did they do that? how did they change individuals into cookie cutter copies for the collective (personal versions help)?

they are making a big mess purposefully…
they believe that after the final revoltuion the glorious leaders will put them up as heroes.
but lenin looked down on such people who woudl be traitors to their own country, families, and so on. whichis why they are usually exterminated, or neutralized some way.

like using the psych industry to put away people who think wrongly. ergo why there is a movement to describe the religious as psychotic becaus they believe in people who are not their, and apply that to children.

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future”
Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Psychiatrist, address to the Childhood International Education Seminar, 1973

so things are a lot farther along than any one realizes… especially since the stuff i can quote to show the start of this goes back to the early part of last century.. its only later inthe 70s that so many thinkthis way that there is a lot of quotes. but before that, lots of the stuff went out of print…

here are some more from some of the well meaning people using psych as a weapon, setting it up for later (like the laws they are making up that cant be inforced, like speech codes. in an emargency, they can be enforced. so this is a way to write laws for after the change, before the cahnge)

Teaching school children to read was a “perversion” and high literacy rate bred “the sustaining force behind individualism.”
John Dewey, Educational Psychologist

dewy created our school system and was a communist operative. he copied the prussian system and russians… even visiting them for tips.

“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished … The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influences of the home are ‘obstructive’ and verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective … It is for the future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810

imagine that.. hegel…

“This is the idea where we drop subject matter and we drop Carnegie Unites (grading from A-F) and we just let students find their way, keeping them in school until they manifest the politically correct attitudes. You see, one of the effects of self-esteem (Values Clarification) programs is that you are no longer obliged to tell the truth if you don’t feel like it. You don’t have to tell the truth because if the truth you have to tell is about your own failure then your self-esteem will go down and that is unthinkable.”
Dr. William Coulson, explaining Outcome Based Education (OBE)

“Education does not mean teaching people to know what they do not know – it means teaching them to behave as they do not behave.”
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) sponsored report: The Role of Schools in Mental Health

“…a student attains ‘higher order thinking’ when he no longer believes in right or wrong”. “A large part of what we call good teaching is a teacher´s ability to obtain affective objectives by challenging the student’s fixed beliefs. …a large part of what we call teaching is that the teacher should be able to use education to reorganize a child’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings.”
Benjamin Bloom, psychologist and educational theorist, in “Major Categories in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives”, p. 185, 1956

those quotes show the origins of some of the thoughts the we thing are natural today…

of course, everyone takes feminist studies and so never reads the history of why they take feminist studies and no longer take world history…
they never noticed the change in school from history, to social studies… the change from personell, to human resources…

it been going on for a long long time…

and now its reaching a critical point..

and just to show the feminists views on family are not just theirs…

“The re-interpretation and eventually (sic) eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith… are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. The fact is, that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respectable people have escaped from these moral chains and are able to observe and think freely.”
Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, 1945

“The family is now one of the major obstacles to improved mental health, and hence should be weakened, if possible, so as to free individuals and especially children from the coercion of family life.”
International Congress on Mental Health, London, 1948

isnt it funny that thats when the feminist started and weekened things? the welfare state.. the eradication of traditional family?

“Public life, politics and industry should all of them be within our sphere of influence…. If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity! If better ideas on mental health are to progress and spread we, as the salesmen, must lose our identity… Let us all, therefore, very secretly be ‘fifth columnists.’”
Dr. John Rawlings Rees, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health

Danila: I wish I could explain the virulence of the hatred. Unfortunately, I can’t. I think it is at least partly an amplifying echo chamber effect, where the people involved mostly know people who think like them and egg each other on to greater and greater heights (or depths, I suppose). It’s a sort of game where they try to show how clever and over-the-top they can be. And if they aren’t personally acquainted with anyone of the type they are condemning, it becomes easier and easier to demonize such people (I noticed this in Paglia’s more reasonable article; she had a long portion in it explaining that she grew up knowing strong country-type women whom she admired).

Part of the rage, of course, is all that pent-up anger from eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, starting with the perception that he cheated Gore out of the Presidency in 2000. And now they perceive what they thought was a sure thing slipping out of their hands again. Incredible frustration, leading to more rage—and they see Sarah Palin as an imposter as well as the catalyst for Obama’s downward slide.

“72 isn’t particularly old. Average life expectancy in the US for men is like 77. So…72+4=76”

I recently had a class that covered this and there is something else to it. While 76 might be the average average, once you make it to certain ages it opens new scales… such as the average person that makes it to 72 can expect to live to be 80-82. While someone that makes it to 82 can expect to live to 85-88… et cetera… Whereas people that never made it to 72, 82, et cetera pull down the general average we all use…

So anyway, the fact that he has made it this far means he will probably live beyond the average….

“I’m having trouble dealing with how nasty these leftists are. I really do not understand people like Heather Malick or Cintra Wilson or Bill Maher, not at ALL.”

You have to learn to tune them out. Not their arguments… if they’re actually making a reasonable argument… but the nastiness.

That and Reagan used to say just laugh at them. When they’re like that just laugh and or say ‘there you go again’… in addition to keeping the hate from getting into us, it drives them nuts to be laughed at…

I guess my take here is slightly different. I rather enjoy the depths to which those on the left descend to. The more people they alienate the more they hurt their own cause.
I always thought it was interesting that women on the left spend so much time aborting themselves out of existence. The quicker they remove themselves from the genetic pool the better humanity will become. It would seem to me that they’re lives are so terrible given that “victim” status they are always carrying around that it would behoove them to quickly depart the area so to speak. Is not living the good life a reason given for abortion.
I guess I just ascribe to the law that you do not stop your opponents from making a fool out of themselves or removing themselves from producing the next generation.

Radical feminism is heavily influenced by marxim thought.
Marxism thought is based on the belief, that mankind is shaped by class. Thus, the communists want to destroy all classes to create an classless society.
Radical feminists adopted this thought, but in their minds, it weren`t classes but genders. They want to overcome the traditional role models of woman and men and create a genderless society.

I’ve long suspected that all of the feminist/minorities/homosexual advocacy by the left was merely a vehicle to advance their agenda, rather than anything they actually believed. The treatment they offer to members of those groups who do not conform is pretty diagnostic, IMO.

At 75 I’m not exactly immune to the beauty of a woman, but it’s not the firsat thing to spring to mind when I’m evaluating a candidate. I keep seeing comments that Palin is hot, or F*******e. But so are Angelina Jolie and Christy Brinkley. When have sexual attributes mattered when it comes to selecting our political leaders?

Yes, Sarah is beautiful, but that is not the first thing I think about when I see her on the campaign trail. What I see and think about is her courage, determination, energy, and can do attitude. I also get the feeling that she is one of us, just a citizen. All those attributes in one person are rare. The left senses this and since her candidacy has elevated McCain’s candidacy, the dems are threatened. The threat is being reacted to so violently because they have felt quite certain they were going to retake the White House for the last two years. As usual, they will do anything, yes anything, to try and destroy Governor Palin.

Let us hope they continue with the smears because, IMO, they are sinking farther with each passing day.

At least so far, Palin seems to be withstanding the shameful character assassination with grace and aplomb. As long as the loony left fills the airwaves with their hate, the more votes they will lose. The “great unwashed” of America understand when a line has been crossed and the Dems will pay for it in November.

I’m from Toronto. Heather Mallick’s article is no surprise but Margaret Wente (in the same paper) was.

“Sarah Palin: Dan Quayle with an up-do.”

“pistol-packin’, diaper-totin’ mama”

“some people are trying to claim that Sarah Palin’s nomination is another breakthrough for women. In fact, it’s an insult”

“Why is John McCain so mesmerized by dishy younger babes? Now we know the really risky choice is him. He’s so reckless that he’s willing to gamble his own country in order to gain electoral advantage.”

Based on many years of lobbying – face to face in the gender wars against the radical feminists, I estimate that they are ballistic about Palin for three roughly equal and equally sad reasons.

First, they have treated EVERY woman who opposes them exactly the same as Palin, in proportion to their perceived level of threat or harm done. Recall the dismissive rudeness to Nancy Reagan or the blistering personal attacks on Texas Governor Ann Richards? Their elitist and extreme cult has never seen a greater challenge than Palin, and they are reacting accordingly.

Second, Palin didn’t make use of the usual and approved feminist tools for advancement. She didn’t build her own visibility by raging or crying about the man/men who did her wrong. She never held a grant-funded post as a “Womyn’s Advocate”. She didn’t have a cushy no-work professorship in an “elite” university examining the entrails of daily life for signs of sexism and patriarchal oppression. Heck, she didn’t even ATTEND those essential “herstory” classes. She is therefore clearly unintelligent and worse, unpredictable. Her peremptory destruction is crucial to their continued delusions.

Third, American radical feminism is, to put it bluntly, a refuge for those who simply cannot find a place in normal, heterosexual everyday life. Statistically a feminist is no more likely than any woman to be a survivor of rape or any form of male abuse, but without doubt feminists are an angry, bitter and alienated bunch. They reject our society and it, unsurprisingly, rejects them in return. The predictable result is their almost ritualized spewing of bile and venom on those women who have what they claim so vehemently NOT to want.

In my years in D.C. and various state capitols, I met many, many women whose bitterness, anger and hatred of men and society were beyond reason and understanding. The strangest thing was that few, if any, of these women had been the victims of extreme violence or prejudice. They FELT affronted and offended to obscene degrees, but in reality were no more or less challenged than most women – and men – who never become radical activists.

So in summary, she threatens them mightily, they feel she cheated in a game whose rules they believed only they should write, and she has the chutzpah to be happy living a life they secretly desire but publicly claim to detest.

The only surprise will be if the attacks and smears abate. Radical feminists sowed the wind and are reaping the whirlwind; and the name of that storm is Sarah.

“As it turns out, though, in this election I only have to answer two questions: do I think McCain would be a better President than Obama? And do I think Palin would be a better President than Obama? I can most definitely say “yes” to both.”

Neo, I guess you’re taking it as a given that Joe Biden doesn’t even come into the equation. There probably isn’t anyone who thinks he would make a good president.

I think it has different reasons depend on what is being complained about – there is not a single one.

However, one of the main ideas is the separation of the person and their actions. Christians, and to a large extent the Right, have a saying: “hate the sin, not the sinner”. It is perfectly fine to think homosexuality is totally 100% wrong and still have friends that are homosexual. However for a large part of the left there is no seperation – if your believes are wrong then *you* are wrong.

We note that looking at many leftist articles about how Christians heads are going to explode because Bristol Palin is pregnant – nope, we believe “hate the sin, not the sinner”. There is a large disconnect there and one side will not (or can not) see that.

One must also realize that some “hatred” really isn’t that, it is deliberate and calculated. The leaders of the movement are using the propensity of their followers to be emotional to achieve an end. Those followers are angry, but are that way because they were lead to it. This happens everywhere, however I generally note that Lefits thought tends towards group consensus and fitting in with a community whereas conservative tends more towards individualistic thought.

And, lastly, I think that leftist tend to be more “feeling” oriented than conservatives. For the most part it isn’t a big deal, however as you move out to the ends of the bell curve they suddenly get VERY emotional. These people are loud but are few. Add in the idea that “hate the sin so hate the sinner” and you get a lot of what you see. Conservatives have their far end of the bell curve too, but they usually tend to be quieter and you rarely see them (you wouldn’t see the leftist either except that they are LOUD).

Some one seems to be frothing at the mouth – and it isn’t pretty. And name calling of almost the lowest order, totally undeserved by Palin, but expected by her supporters considering the trashy tramps she doesn’t claim to be, and no one in their Right mind would become, willingly.

One point, women may be oppressed by men, but they aren’t a minority – all my aunts and mother are widows.

McCain’s mother is in her 90s. His longevity genes are pretty good. Skin cancer may factor in, but the odds are in his favor.

Every day I am more amazed at the hateful spin and dishonest tactics. What’s truly amazing, though is you can usually take what they say, and point it right back at them, because that is who they are really talking about. “Their issues are their own.”

Feel free to denounce and condemn me, but I will tell you the real reason behind much of the furor: ideological lesbianism.

These screaming ladies belong to a political movement that has encouraged, and succeeded, in convincing weak women that they should twist their sexuality to a political ideology.

Women are exquisitely sensitive to the need to develop a group consensus on sexual behavior.

The screaming ladies have, I venture, dabbled in lesbianism to satisfy the demands of the group, aborted their own children as a matter of political solidarity, and in a variety of ways suborned their own bodies and souls to the will of the collective.

They are outraged that any woman has escaped this fate, and they are possessed with a hysterial desire to punish any apostate.

fulminating rage which until now I had assumed was directed by these activists solely (and all too often inappropriately) towards the men they felt had oppressed, assaulted, and otherwise done them wrong.

But that’s like thinking Arabs direct all their rage towards the West, because the West has done them “wrong”. Hell, Neo, you already know that Arabs direct at least HALF their rage against their own, specifically their women and children.

I went to junior high school; I know how mean girls can be to each other.

I highly doubt that high school teaches you how to survive character assassination and wars.

. But that was small potatoes compared to the poisonous (and sexist) invective currently being spewed forth by women on the Left.

Neo, I like to bring up the issue that while female genital mutilation is deemed beneficial by the hierarchy, it is the women, the matriarchs, that enforce it and maintain the practice.

This is human nature. This is human sociology.

Here are Wilson’s opening paragraphs to give you an idea of the—uh—flavor of the piece. The tone continues more-or-less unabated for a total of about 1400 steaming words:

As with many other topics the Left and the Democrats have decried, they have been proven right.

Whenever the Left said there was corruption ,they were right. Only the corruption was perpetrated by the Left, their heroes, and the Democrat party.

The Left said that Big Oil Corporations was corrupt, exploiting weaker people, and making profit off of war. They were right. They just didn’t mention that BP, the company Sarah Palin fought for fairer deals, is being defended by the Left. They didn’t mention that all the Big Businesses that are corrupt, favor Leftist totalitarian policies and contributions.

The Left said that war was hell and suffering. They just didn’t mention that the Left is in the business of making wars, like Georgia’s and Vietnam’s and Iraq’s, into hell and eternal suffering.

The Left is right on many things, Neo, but not in the way it appears.

But I don’t think the hatred of Palin would rise to its present level but for one simple fact: Palin is beautiful.

And the Left and their Democrat allies have participated in the destruction of so many beautiful ideas, have they not, Neo? Beauty is not something they want humanity to produce more of.

In a strange irony, woman who would eviscerate any male who for one moment suggested that a female dressing provocatively and walking in a dark alley late at night was “asking for it” feel free to remark on Palin as “fuckable,” and to refer to her selection by the GOP as their “hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.”

it is only strange because such people were never for arming and defending vulnerable women against sexual assault.

It’s synergistic; something about Palin’s combination of brains, charm, beauty, conservative viewpoints, and proletarian pastimes has brought out an almost unprecedented verbal viciousness in women who by all rights should be proud of her achievements as the second female Vice-Presidential nominee in history.

Many Americans should be proud of America. Get my drift, Neo?

Is this not a goal for which the woman’s movement has labored for so long?

Last time I checked, the founders of the Suffrage and Women’s rights movement are dead.

if a feminist defines herself as being for women, and if Palin is a woman with unacceptable views who nevertheless is on the verge of achieving power, then it solves a knotty problem to declare her to be an unwoman.

Point for you, Neo. A very good distinction.

But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.

Oh, really. Did Castro commit political suicide? Did Mao commit political suicide? Did Khomeini commit political suicide?

No, no, and no.

Treason doth never prosper, only because if it prospered, it wouldn’t be called treason by anyone. Except the losers, that is.

Last time I checked, the founders of the Suffrage and Women’s rights movement are dead.

What I mean is that if you look back on religious orders, you will see the trend that the original founders were strait laced and pure but their descendants got corrupt. More and more corrupt as time went on. Knights Templar, one example.

I need help because I feel like I’m going through some kind of crisis here. I am a “neoneocon” myself […] and a Christian.

I’m having trouble dealing with how nasty these leftists are. I really do not understand people like Heather Malick or Cintra Wilson or Bill Maher, not at ALL. They’re so nasty and vile, how can they believe this stuff?! […] I don’t like to think of other human beings that way.

You have not yet wholly forsaken the virtue of Charity. The vitriol of the Left manages at one stroke to outrage Prudence/Practical Wisdom (because it does not stand any serious examination), Justice (because it is a parcel of lies and smears), Temperance (because it is neither moderate nor measured), and Charity (feeding and feeding on hatred) while wholly excluding Faith or Hope of any kind. The only virtue in which it seems to excel is Fortitude.

In The Secret of Father Brown, Chesterton gives a picture (which I cannot reproduce from memory now) of the small mind, obsessed on a goal, lit only from the fires below. But it seems to fit these people, as much as anything conceived in virtue can.

Without judging the intent, what you are seeing is Evil manifest through the human heart.

“I wish I could explain the virulence of the hatred. Unfortunately, I can’t.”
May be, I can. These “culture wars” are, in fact, religious wars, because leftist ideology is actually a religion, while leftists would never recognize it as such. And religious wars are always especially nasty and cruel: nothing can wound a person more painfully than outright onslaught at his sacred values. Palin is such onslaught not because of her words, which are always civil and moderate, but by fact of her existence. That is why she is perceived by leftists as an extremist, while she is not.

Cintra Wilson needs to put the lid on her can of fudge and get out of her apartment, more often. Then she might see that most of us ladies won’t and don’t want to measure up to what she defines as a woman. As for me and the other ladies, Cintra, visualize us ignoring you.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. Read More >>